Microsoft can't sell Word anymore? | The Coffeehouse

PeterF
Early Adopter

According to Seattle PI Microsoft has been judged in Texas to not sell Word anymore in the United States because of a patent infringement. What's this going to imply for other applications with XML file formats?

Bass
www.spreadfirefox.com/5years/

Well they still can sell it for another 60 days, at cost of $117k per day they continue to sell it from today.

Being a software developer in the USA is a major risk and liability. You never know when you will get sued and unless you are as big as Microsoft, lose all your assets. I told you guys software patents are evil, but almost no one agreed with me.

Well seriously, I don't mind saying this, because it really pisses me off. If you write software and you support software patents, I really really hope one day you end up getting sued for one, and lose all your money and your house too. Because you brought it up on yourself by supporting this software industry killer of a system. That is true justice, in my opinion.

ManipUni
Proving QQ for 5 years!

Software patents are a horrible concept. I cannot think of a single example of a patent in which I felt it was deserved for a new invention. Clearly invented by someone with no programming background.

Unfortunately the US (including Microsoft) are attempting to export their broken concepts abroad to the EU so the entire world can suffer together.

PS - Also, Taxas court again...

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

In reply to ManipUni

#Aug 12th @ 1:13 PM

I'm not against software patents in principle, much like they (were, at least) used properly for novel physical devices. The problem is with the number of companies abusing the patent system and the ignorance of the patent office by patening simple and fundamental concepts.

For this reason I don't believe software should be patentable, and should instead have its own special protection case (like how creative works have copyright, physical designs have patents) that grants a much shorter monopoly protection period (like 5 years tops) and has higher standards for originality and novelty, and companies using these software patents must be actively using them.

...but we'll never see reform like that.

Bass
www.spreadfirefox.com/5years/

In reply to W3bbo

#Aug 12th @ 1:43 PM

All patents must be novel. That is already a requirement!

The problem is, what is novel and not novel depends on the inherent subjectivity of the patent examiner and judge. So you can say well it has be "really novel" or "really really novel", or "uber cool d00d", but it wouldn't matter. Dumb patents will get through and people will be successfully sued for them.

Oh I must be "using" my patent? No problem! Set me set up a faux product page and sell something that vaguely uses my patent for 5 bazillion bucks. No sorry, any kind of "you must use it!" patent clause would be trivial for a patent troll to work around.

The only way to stop this, and seriously, this is the only way, is to completely get rid of software patents. Until then this will continue. I promise you.

The only worthwhile patent reform is eliminating the patentablity of software. Any other kind of "reform" will be worked around.

Bass
www.spreadfirefox.com/5years/

Anyway I welcome seeing more and more people who actually write software get burned by patents.

It's looks like it will be the only way people will see the absurdity of the whole system. And seriously, if I can't beat it, I'll join it. If the patent system continues to be the mess that it is now, please tell me am I doing writing software?

Why produce software? I'll go the safer and more profitable direction: I will become a full time patent troll. I will patent things, and sue people who actually write software. But I'd still be making money from software. Indirectly. Making my money leeching off the software industry, produce nothing useful on my own, stifle progress in the process. Because we all know, that's the type of people that should be rewarded under the law. At least that is the impression I am getting here.

At least I'll get my jet and private island.

brian.shapiro
things go on as always

In reply to Bass

#Aug 12th @ 2:03 PM

Software patents aren't in any way inherently different from patents on physical devices .. you could in theory write vague patents for physical devices ... like "device that uses energy to heat food".

The only problem with software is that people have gotten away with patents that are just like that.

As someone interested in marketing software, I'm much more interested in patents than I am in copyrights on the code. I would make my code open source , with the provision that nobody is able to adapt it to develop a competing product.

Harlequin
http://twitter.com/TrueHarlequin

In reply to brian.shapiro

#Aug 12th @ 2:25 PM

Clarified XML as a "markup language."

This confuses me. =/

figuerres
???

In reply to brian.shapiro

#Aug 12th @ 2:25 PM

"Software patents aren't in any way inherently different from patents on physical devices .. you could in theory write vague patents for physical devices ... like "device that uses energy to heat food".

The only problem with software is that people have gotten away with patents that are just like that.

As someone interested in marketing software, I'm much more interested in patents than I am in copyrights on the code. I would make my code open source , with the provision that nobody is able to adapt it to develop a competing product."

no really.... classic patents need a detailed proof of the invention and how it works.

with software you can write a pice of code and i can write a very different code that can create the same reult using different internal construction.

which do you want to try and patent the function or the code?

as a function is a mathamatic concept you have the issue of non-patentable areas - you can not patent some things like say Log() or Sqr()

or the code? if my code does what your code does but is different then what do you sue on?

Copyright was created to protect "creative works" software is a kind of creative work.

at some level it is also a construction and enginering practice but that is a kind of "meta" there are many levels of practice but they are very different than classic "bridge building"

this is a topic that can and will keep beeing debated for many many years to come i think.

brian.shapiro
things go on as always

In reply to figuerres

#Aug 12th @ 3:45 PM

Designing physical devices there may also be two or more ways to achieve an end result, you can't patent the end result there either. So that's just confusing the issue.

What you patent is a design or mechanism, and its the same thing with software patents. Apple patented the click wheel on the iPod hardware, so no other company is allowed to use it. Other developers have produced designs that look like the click wheel, you saw that on Zunes for instance. So now ask---what if the click wheel was a UI design instead of a physical design? Why would the rules be different for that? There is no reason.

jamie

hooray!! no more weird word html! (ahem) oh ya right.

PeterF
Early Adopter

In reply to jamie

#Aug 12th @ 5:33 PM

The ironical thing is that it's not in the benifit of the company that Word isn't sold anymore, as they seem to build components for Word.

ManipUni
Proving QQ for 5 years!

In reply to PeterF

#Aug 13th @ 1:11 AM

Microsoft should release a "kill bit" patch to fix that Tongue Out

ZippyV
Fired Up

I'd like to see the XML code that violates this patent.

PeterF
Early Adopter

In reply to ZippyV

#Aug 13th @ 2:14 AM

<![CDATA[if(user=='ms'){ask(money);}]]> ? Wink

Erisan

Buzz Out Loud: "The i4i Chairman Loudon Owen joins us to talk about why his company is suing Microsoft to prevent selling Word": http://www.cnet.com/8301-19709_1-10308457-10.html

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

In reply to Erisan

#Aug 13th @ 4:15 AM

Thanks for the link, I'm listening now.

To sum up his arguments:

There is this thing called "Custom XML" which they claim they invented
...completly ignoring the fact that XML is extensible anyway
No word on whether they want Microsoft to license their patent, or to force users of Word to buy their XML add-on instead
East Texas because the judge is "experienced" (lawl)

SlackmasterK
I write my OWN blogging engines

In reply to W3bbo

#Aug 13th @ 4:44 AM

Sounds like we can still buy Office 2003 according to the argument. Or perhaps Microsoft will just kill the *.*x formats, or maybe they'll just live with the fine. Remember how the $1M/day fine worked out?

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

In reply to SlackmasterK

#Aug 13th @ 2:59 PM

Office 2003 had rudimentary support for XML-based documents (especially Excel) even before the OOXML add-in became available. Open up a stock Word 2003 instance and open the taskpane then load up the "XML Structure" page.

Their patent goes back to the late 1990s, I'm calling prior art: I remember SausageTool's HotDog XML editor being available by then.

dahat

In reply to W3bbo

#Aug 13th @ 4:36 PM

Simply being an XML editor isn't enough, having very clear basis similar to the claimed patent is what you need.

SlackmasterK
I write my OWN blogging engines

In reply to dahat

#Aug 13th @ 9:43 PM

Yeah, else we could bring up edlin, vi, etc.

exoteric
I : Next<I>

In reply to ManipUni

#Aug 12th @ 1:13 PM

Maybe that's what it takes: a total global patent-spaghetti breakdown, then we'll start over again, without them.

TommyCarlier
I want my scalps!

The patent is not about storing a wordprocessing document using XML. It's about allowing “custom XML” inside the wordprocessing XML. OpenOffice.org and other word processors don't have this.

stevo_
Human after all

I've no idea what 'custom xml' is..

TommyCarlier
I want my scalps!

In reply to stevo_

#Aug 14th @ 2:41 AM

Mary-Jo Foley explains the “custom XML”-part of the patent infringement, and why it only affects Word and not Excel or other Office apps.